* M^ m i i » Mi^ EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS USELESS AND CRUEL. (A Medical View of the Vivisection Question.) AN ADDRESS BY Dr. W. R. HADWEN, J.P., M.D., L.R.C.F ., M.R.C.8., L.S.A., Etc. J, DELIVERED AT NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, THURSDAY, MARCH 5th, 1914. PRICE TWOPENCE. Published by THE BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION, 32 Charing Ckoss, London, S.W. ,0iv*y \ -*j0\n * a^ m+ pa \r\fU let The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. (The British Anti« Vivisection Society.) Foundress : FKANCES POWER COBBE. President and Hon. Secretary : WALTER R. HADWEN, J. P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., etc. Are You a Member of the British Union ? If you are, will you do all you can to help us in our great work ? If you are not, will you become a Member? The Subscription of Membership is from 10/- per annum upwards. For an Associate 3/- per annum. Life Member, £5. PLEASE ADDRESS TO THE — Secretary— Miss B. E. KIDD, 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W., from whom any literature upon the subject may be obtained. "THE ABOLITIONIST." Monthly Organ of the British Union. CONTAINING High-class Articles on the Moral, Scientific, and Historical Aspects of the Anti-Vivisection Question ; Replies to the Research Defence Society ; Racy Criticism of New Vivisectional " Cures" ; Chronicle of the Month's Work, &c. Should be read by all Humanitarians. Specimen Copy sent post free to any address. YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION ( t0 P S e de ) 3/- per annum. i Experiments on Living Animals: Useless and Cruel. ADDRESS BY DR. W. R, HADWEN. Delivered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday, March 5th, 1914. H PUBLIC meeting, promoted by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Branch of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, was held in the Grand Assembly Rooms, Barras Bridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Thursday, March 5th, 1914, when an address was delivered by Dr. W. R. Hadwen, J.P., on " Experiments on Living Animals : Useless and Cruel." Mr. Frank F. Worthington presided, and there was a large attendance. Dr. Hadwen said: Mr. Chairman and friends, — The question before us is : Is Vivisection right or is it wrong ? I do not think we can for one single moment talk of any half-way house in dealing with it, but we have definitely to face a clear and plain issue — is vivisection right or is it wrong ? Now, there is no question about it that this brings before us a great moral issue. If, for the sake of argument, we take for granted that vivisection is cruel, then undoubtedly, since every- thing that is cruel is wrong, the practice of vivisection must be wrong. If, also, we take for granted that good has been derived from vivisection and that good results will be achieved from the practice in the future, it is equally immoral, because we have no right whatever to do evil that good may come. (Hear, hear). And hence, which ever way one looks at it, even taking for granted the position the vivisector takes up, vivisection, in our opinion, is a practice which cannot be condoned. Now, for some years past, in fact within the last century, there has been a very 'great development of the humanitarian sentiment. It is within that century that we have got rid of (2) slavery, upon the ground that the black man had equal rights with the white man. During the same period we have got rid of the traffic in young children, which has been abolished by means of the Factories Acts, on the ground that young children had rights as well as adults. During the same period we got rid of the abuses and cruelties that were carried on in the army and navy, such as keel-hauling in the latter and flogging in the former, because it was laid down that our fighting men had equal rights with .civilians, and that we had no right whatever to resort, in dealing with them, to a species of barbarism that would not be tolerated in the civilian population. During the same period we have got rid of certain cruel sports, such as bull-baiting and cock- fighting, because they were considered degrading to the moral fibre of the times, and now we are approaching the question of vivisection, and we are seeking to get that abolished on the ground that these helpless, defenceless, speechless animals have their rights, and that we are pleading on behalf of those who cannot plead for themselves. Inconsistency of the Law. Now, their is another ground why we consider vivisection wrong, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the true legal spirit of this country. For instance, upon the Statute Book there is what is called Martin's Act. Under that Act some hundreds of persons are prosecuted every year throughout this country for cruelty to animals. If a coster-monger drives a lame pony, or one with a galled back, or in an emaciated or distressed condition, he is promptly summoned by the R.S.P.C.A., or one of its branches, or by the police, for perpetrating cruelty, and is brought before the Bench. It is no use whatever for that man to plead that a sick wife and several children were dependent upon him, and that, therefore, he was compelled to resort to this measure of cruelty in order to gain a livelihood. The Bench would immediately tell him that that was no excuse. He had been guilty of cruelty, and whatever benefits might result from that cruelty they were bound to convict. Now all we claim is this, that the scientists shall be placed on the same level as the coster-monger, and we desire to see that the (3) scientists are accorded no right to do behind the laboratory door what the coster-monger is not allowed to do in the open street. But we are told that this is a medical question, and that, therefore, the man in the street has nothing whatever to do with it, and that he has no right to discuss it, and that this question should be left to medical men to settle. Now, what I maintain is this : the very moment you take a medical or scientific dogma, and incorporate that medical or scientific dogma in an Act of Parliament, you take it at once outside the range of medical law and you make that question a public, social and political one. This being so, the man in the street has as much right to deal with that social and political problem as any philosopher in the land. Consequently we say that this question, having become a great political question, and one which lay Members of Parliament are called upon to discuss, and upon which they are expected to vote in accordance with the wishes of their constitutents, it behoves the man in the street to look into it, that he may view it intelligently. A Question of History. But I shall probably be told that the man in the street cannot understand it, that the vivisection question is one which only medical men can understand, and that the ordinary man in the street cannot possibly grasp it. Here, as a medical man, I differ entirely. It is not a question of understanding the intricacies of any physiological or pathological question: that is not the point. The question is this : Has there been any definite knowledge, have there been any great beneficial results achieved by vivisection, or not ? The moment you ask that question you at once raise an issue which is not that of medical intricacies ; you take it outside the range of physiological or pathological deductions, and make it a pure question of history, and as a question of history I say that the man in the street can understand it as well as any medical man in the country. Take and investigate the subject. Go and look back and see if such-and-such a so-called discovery from vivisection has been achieved by vivisection, by experimentation on living animals. This is a pure question of historical enquiry, and in that respect the man in the street is quite as capable of understanding the subject as any medical man in the land. (4) But more than that, I maintain that the ordinary man in the street knows quite as much of this subject as the ordinary medical man, simply because the great bulk of both classes know nothing whatever about it. If you take the medical man and cross-examine him upon it I think he will confess, in the majority of cases, that he does not know anything about the subject. You cannot understand it unless you make the subject one of in- dependent study. Unless you investigate from an entirely independent standpoint, unless you are educated upon it, you cannot understand it. The investigation of this matter forms no part of a medical curriculum. The individual is not trained in any of the minutae of this business. It is a great mistake to suppose that medical men generally are authorities upon the subject of experimentation upon living animals. We are not out to fight the medical men of this land — the 30,000 medical men upon the Medical Register, who know nothing about it — we are out to fight 400 or 500 vivisectors who are licensed by the British Government, and who perform their 80,000 to 90,000 experiments annually upon these poor, defenceless creatures. These are the men we are out to fight. The medical profession knows nothing about it, and practically, in this respect, the medical man is no better off than the ordinary man in the street. Medical Opinion. This is the reason why we seek to educate the public upon this matter, because it has become a political question — and it is going to be a great one — and, as this political question will have to be solved and settled in the House of Commons, we are going to the country to stir the heart of the people, that they may tell their representatives in the House of Commons how they expect them to vote upon it. Now, you may ask, " What credentials have you to appeal to us ? What gives you any authority to speak on this subject, more than any other ordinary medical man"? Simply this: I have studied both sides of the question, and the majority of my medical colleagues have only accepted one side. I was brought up to believe in vivisection ; I accepted at my college and university all the assertions that were made in regard to vivisection, namely, (5) that great discoveries had been made by this practice, and that it was the only means by which such discoveries could be achieved in the future, and I took all this for granted, and I accepted it as a matter of course. For some years after I was in active practice I still believed in it, still backed up the assertions which I had so readily accepted, until I was at last led to investigate the matter for myself from an independent standpoint, and as the result of that investigation I came to the conclusion that no knowledge whatever had been gained by experiments upon animals but what could have been gained, and had been gained, by other means of a harmless character ; and further, I came to the conclusion that nothing whatever had been gained from experimentation upon living animals that had been of the slightest benefit in the amelioration or the cure of any human ailment or disease. Now, that is a very strong expression to make use of, and you may say that it is a very stringent expression to use in the face of the generally accepted opinion of the time. It is not a matter of whether I am in a minority amongst medical men or in the majority; that is not the point. We have not to deal with majorities or minorities, but, as I said at the outset of my address, we have to ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or wrong? The unanimity, or otherwise, of the medical profession makes no difference to the right or wrong of a question, because the medical profession has been unanimously wrong so many times that really one has almost come to the conclusion that it never has been unanimous except when it has been unanimously wrong. (Laughter). Through the whole line of history minorities have, as a rule, been in the right. But do not let us argue from that standpoint, but let me press upon you again and again, that we must ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or is Vivisection wrong ? You may say, " what led you to the conclusion at which you have arrived ? Well, strange to say, it was the vivisectors them- selves who converted me to anti-vivisection. I found that the contradictions among the vivisectors were so great that there was no vivisector who brought forward one single statement but what another vivisector was always ready to come forward and contra- dict it by performing precisely the same experiment as his predecessor. (6) "Wandering- in the Dark." I discovered that there was no finality about it, and what was more, the vivisectors have so thoroughly realised that fact for themselves that they began to ask, and they are urging now more and more, that criminals should be handed over to them for experimentation, because they find the experimentation upon the lower animals is of such an unsatisfactory character. Dr. Preston King, who has this year been elected Mayor of the ancient city of Bath, wrote in the " Lancet " on September 30th, 1905 : — " Consider for a moment what this would mean. At present we are wandering in the dark, seeking vainly for the light that these experiments alone can give. For instance, is bovine tuberculosis communicable to man? This question could for ever be set at rest by a few direct experiments. Or take cancer. Is this catching from man to man, and what is its cause ? During recent years the use of anti-toxins has broken the ground in a field of treatment before undreamed of. At present we can only experiment with these on animals, and the results we obtain must be accepted cautiously, for they are liable to the errors of all reasonings from analogy." That is how he looks upon the futility of animal experiment- ation and the necessity for criminals to be handed over to the vivisectors, so that they might perform their diabolical work upon them. He explained that he would give them a choice between that and hanging. So much, then, for the reasons for the attitude which we take. I do not expect everybody to rise to the ethical standard. Unfortunately, we must be, I am afraid, such cowards, and the cowardly element rises so pre-emiently in the breast of human kind, that we are all more or less prone to take advantage of others for our own benefit. Hence, when you come to talk about the immorality of torturing creatures in a lower scale of animal life than ourselves, in order that we might benefit from it, you will find again and again the answer rises to the lips of those to whom you are talking. "But if, by means of a little pain inflicted upon these creatures — a dog, a cat, a rabbit or a guinea pig, you can find benefits which would be of immense value to the human (7) race, why should it not be done?" Consequently, we are obliged to lower our standard from that of the high morality, to which every noble nature in the universe should rise, and show human nature that the practice is not merely an immoral one, but an unscientific and a useless one. Three Scientific Objections. I look upon it as unscientific upon three grounds. First of all, the differences, anatomically and physiologically, between the lower animals and man, are so great that you cannot argue scientifically from an animal to a man. In the second place, you never experiment upon a lower animal except when that animal is in an abnormal condition. Supposing it be under the influence of an anaesthetic, then the influence of that anaesthetic upon the secretions and juices of the body will be such that it will throw out of gear the possibility of arriving at anything like a scientific conclusion. If, upon the other hand, the animal is not in an anasstheticised state, then the fright and the pain of the poor creature will render the condition abnormal, and as you can never expect to get a normal result from an abnormal state, it is clear that upon that issue the practice must be an unscientific one. Then, in the third place, you can never judge of any results in animal experimentation except by objective signs; that is, you can only judge by what you see, and as no two persons ever see the same object in precisely the same way, we may here get a reason for the numerous contradictions which take place amongst the vivisectors. You cannot find out that most important item in investigation, the subjective symptoms, simply because the animal cannot talk. You are shut up to objective signs, and therefore are bound to get misleading results. The whole shores of vivisection are strewn with the wrecks of exploded fallacies. You simply get the unscientific issue which you might expect from an unscientific process. Thus these three grounds are quite sufficient to show that vivisection is unscientific. But now for the first point, namely, that you cannot reason from animals to man. In order to illustrate that, and press my point, let us take a glimpse into the region of surgery. Now, w) (8) are told that surgery has made immense advances in late years. I admit it. What Caused Surgery to Advance ? There have been enormous advances in surgical art. These advances have been almost entirely limited to surgery in the abdominal region. That is where practically all the great discoveries or advances in surgical art have been made. There is scarcely an organ, there is scarcely a growth of any kind in any organ of the abdominal region, but can be successfully removed by the surgeon. What is the ground for all this advance? Immediately the pro-vivisector says "experiments on animals!" All our advances in surgery, we are told, depend upon experiments upon animals. There are three things that have brought about this magnificent result. The first was the discovery of anaesthetics. By the discovery of anaesthetics the surgeon was able to take his time about his work ; he was able to do it throughly ; he was not worried to death and tortured in his mind by the thought of the agony he was inflicting on the patient on the operating table. Anaesthetics were the first foundation of successful advance in surgery. Anaesthetics had nothing to do with experiments on animals, for anaesthetics — ether, chloroform, and so on — were discovered by the discoverers' experiments upon themselves. And here let me say that this is a character of vivisection to which I have no objection, for as long as the vivisectors will be content to experiment upon one another I shall let them go on with it until further orders. But I say don't be so cowardly, whilst you talk of your wonderful self-sacrifice and all the rest of it, as to be afraid to prove it. Don't be torturing these poor things that cannot help themselves. The first foundation was anaesthetics, and the second was the adoption of aseptic methods in surgery — that is, absolute cleanli- ness. It has nothing to do with experiments on animals; nothing whatever. It was simply the outcome of common sense. We know in days gone by it was considered the proper thing for a surgeon always to keep one dirty coat, that he had perhaps used for twenty years, hanging behind the operating theatre door, in (9) which to perform his operation, and dirt was considered to be of no importance whatever; dirty surgery was the order of the day. Semmelweis, who never performed an experiment upon an animal in his life, was the first to introduce clean surgery into the operating theatre, and bv means of that he was able to reduce in the maternity wards in Vienna the death rate, which had been 12 per cent, in one year (1847-48), to I per cent. This had nothing to do with experiments on animals. Three English surgeons, Lawson Tait, Granville Bantock, and Sir William Savory, followed the same lines, and persisted in doing so at a time when Listerism, or what is called a?itisepsis, was the fashion over the whole world. They were ridiculed and black- balled by the profession, but their successes could not be denied. At last Lord Lester gave up the dangerous antiseptic spray, and what is now the practice in our best hospitals is simply asepsis, or strict surgical cleanliness such as was practised by these men. The germs in the air can be disregarded altogether, and if you concentrate your attention on killing them, you are much more likely to kill your patient. Now, the third thing in connection with successful abdominal surgery, was the discovery of the right kind of ligature and suture, that is, the sort of thread that might be used to tie or sew together the organs that were to be left behind in the abdominal cavity, so that there might not be irritation or inflammation set up, resulting in septic poisoning, or that the patient might not die through the ligature becoming rapidly absorbed, and the blocd vessels giving way. This discovery of the right kind of ligature is practically the whole question in abdominal surgery. Did we learn how to ligature or suture correctly by experiments on the lower animals ? Animal Experiments Misleading. Now, there is one man who stands out to-day above all others, I suppose, as the leading authority upon abdominal surgery. I refer to Sir Frederick Treves. Sir Frederick Treves, in his speech delivered at Birmingham, in October, 1898, and published in the " Lancet " on November 5th, 1898, said as follows: — "Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry ( io) operations upon the intestines of dogs, and such are the differences between the human and the canine bowel that when I came to operate on man I found that I was much hampered by my new experience; that I had every thing to unlearn, and that my experience had done little but to unfit me to deal with the human intestine." That man is a believer in vivisection; he is an authority upon surgery. He is an authority upon that character of surgery which has yielded the great glory for the art in modern times; and, in the quotation I have made, he has thrown overboard experiments on animals. And I say, in the question of ligature and suture, we owe nothing to vivisection whatever. Professor Lawson Tait, whose name you can conjure with in every city on the continent of Europe, was perhaps the most brilliant and successful abdominal surgeon of his time, and what did he tell us ? That as long as ever he operated upon the basis of experimentation on animals he did nothing but lose his patients, but directly he gave that up he began to save them. And another thing he said in a letter I have, "Vivisection has done nothing for surgery but lead to horrible bungling." Take another important operation — that of the removal of stone from the kidney: and here I will quote another authority who believes in vivisection — no less an authority than Sir Henry Morris, who held the position of President of the Royal College of Surgeons, when he told the Royal Commission recently under cross-examination : — " The operation that I did in the first place, and which I was the first to do, was done quite irrespective of any experiments on animals; that is the cutting out of the stone from the kidney. This was from knowledge acquired by experience from operations on the liver and other organs in the human subject." You may turn where you like, and you will realise and see the truth of my contention that the great claim of the vivisector is not fulfilled in surgery, and that the greatest authorities in abdominal surgery themselves confess that experiments on animals have nothing to do with their success. I will take the greatest vivisector of the day, and put him into the witness box, ( II ) and we will hear what he has to say on the subject, namely Professor Starling. When he was cross-examined recently, before the Royal Commission, he said: — "The last experiment must always be on man." If, then, the last experiment must always be on man, does it not stand to reason that the first scientific experiment must also be on man? and if the first scientific experiment must be on man, then it is perfectly clear that all preceding experiments upon the lower animals must have been unsatisfactory and inconclusive. Brain Surgery. But now I will take another subject in connection with surgery — that is brain surgery, for, of course, there is very little surgery to be done in the thoracic region. The alleged triumphs of surgery belong chiefly to the brain and abdomen. We hear a good deal about brain surgery. We are told thousands of lives have been saved because of the discovery of the localisation of the brain centres, and that this discovery was due entirely to experiments upon the brains of monkeys. Most of our opponents deal in big figures, and very strong language. Unfortunately for them, we get very few statistics published about brain surgery : whilst the abdominal surgeons are prepared to record their victories and triumphs, the brain surgeons are very careful not to do so. We have challenged Sir Victor Horsley again and again, but he declines to bring forward statistics. We know how true it is in many of the brain surgical cases of to-day that " the operation is successful, but the patient dies." Now, with regard to the localisation of the brain centres. Is it true we have gained that knowledge from experiments on monkeys' brains ? Charcot, a great French authority, and perhaps the greatest authority upon the brain that ever lived, declared there was nothing we could learn from an animal's brain except the topography of the animal's brain. We all know that if there is one thing more than another in which the human differs from the sub-human it is in the character of the brain, and here again is a point in which you may rely upon ( 12) it, we cannot possibly argue from animals to man. About three years ago Dr. Samuel West, as President of the Medical Society in London, gave an address on this very subject, and he then announced to his audience that all our knowledge of the brain centres depends upon the work of Dr. Hughlings Jackson, and he never performed an experiment on an animal in his life. How did he arrive at his conclusions ? They were scientific results, and he obtained them from the human subject. He watched his patients by the bedside; he saw the symptoms and physical signs that were developed as a result of some lesion in the brain, and then he carefully examined those brains afterwards in the dead- house, and proved that in those cases, one after another, certain symptoms always bore relation to certain brain lesions, and thus, before he died, he was able to show scientifically cause and effect, and map out the brain into the various centres, showing what centres would be affected when cerlain results of irritation or pressure took place in the human body. That was scientific. That was judging upon the human species. And here let me point to one centre, the centre of speech. Just above the ear, upon the posterior lobe of what is called the third left frontal convolution, there is a strange little centre that governs speech. We know that centre. I had a case only a short time ago, which I was able to diagnose immediately as a case of paralysis of speech, caused by a little haemorrhage upon that particular centre of the brain. Now tell me, how can you possibly discover the speech centre in a human brain by experiments upon an animal that cannot talk ? And if you can discover a delicate centre such as that without experiments on living animals, there should be no difficulty whatever in discovering the other coarser centres, without resort to barbarism of that description. So much then for surgery, whether abdominal or of the brain. Circulation of the Blood. Let me touch on the question of physiology. We are told knowledge is everything ; that practical value is not of so much importance provided we get knowledge, because knowledge may lead to wonderful results, and that we are dependent for our ( 13) knowledge in physiology — the intricate processes concerned in the specialized work of the various organs of the body — we are depen- dent, they say, upon experiments on animals. You ask for a case in point, and immediately we are told — the circulation of the blood. But Harvey himself declared that he did not discover the circulation of the blood by means of experiments on animals. Any person, by cutting one of his own arteries, as you constantly do accidentally, with a piece of glass, or by some accident, discovers at once that an artery contains red blood, the veins containing purple blood. When a person dies and the heart stops, the arteries become empty and the veins become full. The heart first pumped that blood into the arteries ; it flows from the left side of the heart to the arteries, and then through the veins up towards the heart again upon the right side. The veins, differing from the arteries, have peculiar valves in them, which only allow the blood to pass in one direction. That was a discovery that could only be discovered in the post-mortem room, as a matter of anatomical knowledge. Now Harvey argued, as he himself declared, that, seeing that these delicate valves in the veins must be there for a purpose, that purpose was evidently to secure that the blood went towards the right side of the heart, and was not allowed to go back again through those beautiful little cup-shaped valves. It was clear that the blood must flow in a circle, since it was pumped from the left side of the heart into vessels which presented no impediment to its full force and then passed on through the valves of the veins to the right side. The one thing that puzzled Harvey was, how did the blood get from the arteries to the veins ? That he never discovered. Harvey never did discover completely, to demon- stration, the circulation of the blood. All that Harvey did was to argue in a logical way that there must be a circulation, owing to the anatomical arrangement of the valves, and the distinctive difference between arteries and veins. Harvey did perform experiments on animals — he tried to prove his case by means of them, but it was not by these experiments that he made the discovery. Anybody can prove it by the simple device of a syringe and a little coloured fluid pumped into the vessels of a dead body. Thirty years after Harvey's deductions. ( 14) Malpighi invented the microscope, and with the microscope came to light those beautiful little capillary (hair-like) blood vessels, which connected the arteries with the veins, and then it was that Harvey's logical deduction was proved up to the hilt. Circulation was demonstrated beyond all controversy, not by experiments on animals, but simply through the agency of the microscope. Foolish Experiments. Then we are asked, " How are we to know the process of digestion except by experiments on animals ? You cannot experi- ment on human beings for that purpose!" But, tell me! You get the gastric juice of a dog — a dog that can digest a bone — how are you going to argue from a dog's stomach to a human stomach in order to discover the relative nature of the digestive processes? It is too ridiculous for comment. Then numerous experiments are being conducted in regard to diabetes, chiefly on the pancreas of dogs. But directly you touch a delicate organ like the pancreas or sweetbread, you disorganise the whole thing and render the condition abnormal. How can you arrive at any correct physiological result ? And no one is any 'forrader' on the question of diabetes than they were fifty years ago. So with the gall bladder. Gall stones are actually put inside the gall bladder of a dog. The dog is opened and sewn up, and the animal is left suffering for days, until decomposition sets in, and the poor thing dies in a raging fever. And yet nothing has been gained by this cruelty. You have the case of Dr. Rose Bradford's experiments upon thirty-nine fox terriers, in which one kidney was taken out and a portion of another kidney excised. The animal was taken back three or four times to the operating table, and portion after portion of kidney was taken away, in order to see how long the animal could live with as little kidney as possible. He records himself — and here, mark you, we are charged with exaggeration and misstatements, whereas for proof we have to depend for our evidence upon what the vivisectors themselves write— in this case Dr. Rose Bradford records how these animals suffered, how they had vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, ulcerations, and all the rest of it, for days and weeks and months, (15) whilst the hard eyes of the operator watched these poor little intelligent creatures in their suffering. When asked at the Royal Commission what had been gained by it, Dr. Rose Bradford said that he had discovered that dogs never suffered from any disease which was akin to human Bright's disease. I might also mention the wonderful discovery of the double action of the spinal nerves. Sir Charles Bell acknowledged that experiments upon animals had done nothing but lead astray, and that his knowledge of the double action of the spinal nerves was gained from anatomical knowledge, and had nothing whatever to do with experiments upon animals. Physiology, the whole way through, owes nothing to vivisection. Fashions in Medicine. I will turn from that to the question of medicine. Now, medicine we cannot call a science. It never will be. Medicine runs in fashions, and there is as much fashion in medicine as there is in ladies' hats, and medical fashions change with equal rapidity. Constitutions differ most enormously. What you might give in one case would certainly not do in another. Each individual patient must be an individual study to each individual medical man, for you cannot reason positively from one human being to another, let alone from an animal to a human being. You never know even that a dose of castor oil is going to take precisely the same effect upon one person as another, and so with everything else. Modern medicine has been running in the range of what is called the serum and vaccine therapy. This new fashion depends upon the theory that there is a specific germ as the origin for every specific disease. It was the invention of a French chemist, by the name of Pasteur, who, late in life, some seven or eight years after he had been struck down with partial brain paralysis, took for the first time in his life to the study of medicine, and whether he did not understand properly, or could not, I do not know, but he turned topsy-turvy the discovery that had been made by a celebrated savant, Antoine Bechamp, who had shown that certain organisms found in the atmosphere were fermentative bodies, and further, that the same (16) kind of organisms existed in the human body, and that under the action of disease, these strange little bodies became converted into bacteria of various shapes. Pasteur turned this topsy-turvy, and instead of accepting Bechamp's theory, that these micro- organisms were the result of disease, he came to the conclusion they were the cause. He jumbled up bodies of fermentation with bodies of disease, and launched upon the world the germ theory of disease, and the whole medical profession, owing to Pasteur's standing as a chemist of renown, accepted this theory wholesale, and have been running mad on it ever since. The Germ Theory of Disease. Professor Koch, of Berlin, when this theory first came out, said, if true, it would have to conform to certain definite rules, namely, if a germ were the causation of a disease it must always be found in connection with that disease. Secondly, it should never be found apart from that disease. Thirdly, it ought to be cultivated outside the body, upon a separate medium; and lastly, when inoculated into the lower animal it ought to produce a disease similar to that which obtained in the human subject. Now, how does that pan out ? The Editor of the " Lancet," the authority that practically the whole medical professional men bow to, stated on March 20th, 1909, in a leading article, as follows : — " It is not at all rare to fail to find the causal organism in an individual case of the disease, and the explanation usually given is that the search has not been as yet suffi- ciently thorough. Again, many organisms which are considered to be causal, are frequently to be found in healthy persons. The organisms of enteric fever, of cholera, and of diphtheria may be cited as examples of this, and to explain these facts we have to invoke the idea of healthy 'carriers' of disease. When a causal organism is injected into an animal, often it happens that it gives rise to a disease bearing no clinical resemblance to the original malady. Thus we cannot rely upon Koch's postulates as a decisive test of a causal organism." Now, seeing that Pasteur himself accepted that dictum of Koch, practically the whole foundation of the system is gone, and (17) if the foundation is gone, the whole fabric of serum and vaccine that has been built upon it must go too. Diphtheria Anti-toxin. Now let us take the case of diphtheria, which is a disease that is supposed to be due to the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus. This bacillus I will guarantee to find in practically every mouth in this audience to-night, and according to this new method of diagnosing diphtheria, I should be perfectly justified, if I found it in your throats, in certifying the medical officer of health to-morrow morning, that you were suffering from diphtheria, and getting a half-crown fee in each case for doing so. We are told that anti-toxin, which is obtained from experi- ments made on animals, has reduced the death-rate of diphtheria from something like 30 or 40 per cent, down to 10 per cent. That is according to the Metropolitan Asylums Board returns. The peculiar thing is this, that it is true the reduction did commence directly after anti-toxin was introduced, but when that reduction began — it is passing strange, but the number of cases increased. Where there were scores of diphtheria cases before anti-toxin was introduced, they ran to thousands afterwards. Why? Because the old diphtheria was diphtheria. It was the genuine article, but the new diphtheria was not in any sense diphtheria, but in numerous instances was just a sore throat with a germ in it. But this sore throat was said to be due to this germ, and so it came about that an ordinary sore throat which our grandmothers would have cured by putting a stocking around the neck, and blowing down the throat flour of sulphur, and giving a good dose of brimstone and treacle, now became ' diphtheria.' Thus, by throwing in a heap of cases, you reduce your mortality, because you throw into the count an enormous number of common sore throats. Whilst the deathrate in these cases treated with anti- toxin were reduced from 30 per cent to 10 per cent, however, the cases treated without anti-toxin were reduced from 13 to 3 per cent. As a matter of fact the whole of these statistics are not worth the paper they are written on, because the statistical basis is absolutely fallacious. The only way in which you can possibly judge diphtheria is by diphtheritic deaths. Let the Registrar ( 18) General speak. For fifteen years after anti-toxin was introduced compared with the fifteen years before, the diphtheria death-rate increased no less than 25 per cent. These are genuine diphtheria deaths that you cannot mistake. Any improvement in diphtheria has had no more to do with anti-toxin than it has with the man in the moon. The diphtheria death-rate began to increase as soon as ever the new Education Act came in. By cramming the whole of the insanitary board schools with children by the score, by the hundred, so that they were packed in any place, where they could not be properly accommodated, like herrings in a box, the air became impure and diphtheria spread proportionately. Now, with enlarged board schools, airy premises, with so many cubic feet for each child, and so much play ground space, now being erected all over the country, diphtheria begins to go down. The basis of these so-called zymotic diseases is insanitary conditions, and by pumping in these filthy serums, poison is added to poison in the human body. They are going the wrong way to work altogether. They should seek to remove the cause that produces the disease. Plague and Consumption. Take the question of plague. Years ago plague was very rare in India, but since they have started sera and vaccines, they have really been giving the people plague, and the plague has become endemic. More than a million natives are being swept off the scene by plague every year, and yet here are the festering refuse heaps and insanitary conditions — horrid conditions which the rats had to help the Indian Government to get rid of, and then the rats are blamed for having produced the natural results of insanitation. Instead of sending sanitary engineers to put the matter right they are sending these filthy tubes of serum, this dung hill medicine, as Sir Benjamin Ward called it, which only made the natives weaker than before. We are told, too, that tuberculosis has declined, and that that depends upon the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. Why ! tuberculosis had gone down 50 per cent, before the germ was discovered. The disease has been going down ever since, in ( 19) proportion as the sanitary conditions of the country have improved, as back to back houses have been removed, streets made wider, good water brought into the neighbourhood, and proper sewage conditions carried out. And here is a striking fact, and I want you to think it over. I went carefully through the last return of the Registrar General the other day, and I find that in practically every case where these inoculations have been used for the cure of disease, the death-rate has gone up. In all these diseases — scarlet fever, measles, and all zymotic diseases — which are dependent entirely upon sanitary conditions for their prevention, the death-rate has gone down. This is one way in which we could get rid of the trouble. People are occupied, medical men are occupied, too much with curing disease instead of being occupied in preventing it. Instead of medical men running after these fashions of the times, if they would help John Burns to pass his Bill for the better housing of the working classes, we should then arrive at something like a scientific solution of the great problems of disease in this country. The Testing: of Drug's. Now I come to another subject, and that is the question of drugs. I hear people say, " How are you going to test your drugs thoroughly ? Surely you would not start by testing drugs upon human beings ; you would test them on animals ? " You cannot argue from animals to man, and never was this so true as in the case of drugs. Supposing you were to let some rabbits out into a field of belladonna, and you found those rabbits ate up that belladonna and grew fat on it, and then, judging from that, you might say to your wife the next morning," I say, Mary, the rabbits have flourished on that belladonna; I think we should give it to the children, and see if it will fatten them up too." This would be followed by a coroner's inquest, which shows you that you cannot argue from animals to men. Goats can eat hemlock with impunity, but it is fatal to the human species. Then take the little hedgehog, a most interesting little creature. We talk very often about such animals in a supercilious way, but we do not understand them. The more you come to know these creatures, the more you will be surprised at the intelligence they possess. (20) We do not know the extent of it. Take the little hedgehog. Supposing you were to try and experiment on that, you will be surprised when I tell you that a hedgehog can swallow as much opium as a Chinaman can smoke in a fortnight, and it can wash it down with as much prussic acid as would kill a whole regiment of soldiers, and still be as lively as ever. How are you, then, going to judge from animals to men ? The short-tailed monkey would be killed with the smallest quantity of strychnine, and the long-tailed monkey could take as much as you like. Then take the cat. Citric acid, the active principle in lemons, will kill a cat immediately, and if we were to judge the effect of citric acid upon the familiar cat, we should never have known the enjoyment of a glass of lemon juice in the summer. Many other instances could be cited; until you have tried a drug on man you cannot tell whether the effect will be similar or quite different. It is impossible to argue from animals to men ; it is clearly out of the question altogether. Is Vivisection Cruel ? Well, now, having dealt with the unscientific character of vivisection, having shown it to be misleading and immoral in character, I want to ask the question, is it cruel? I can quite understand somebody saying: supposing it is mis- leading — well, after all, we do kill these creatures, and we kill them for food. (I myself have been a vegetarian for 35 years.) The argument will be used in that way, and therefore if there is no cruelty about it, what does it matter? Is there cruelty connected with this practice ? That is the point we have got to argue. Let us go to the vivisectors, and let them give an answer. Here is what Professor Thane said before the Royal Commission, that the removal of a portion of the second kidney, or the taking away of the thyroid gland, " makes the animal very ill," and he refers to other operations which are " followed by severe illness." Then again he says, in regard to Certificate B., that where the animals are operated upon, and then allowed to recover afterwards, they do suffer severely whilst under observation in the experiment. Then with regard to Certificate A. That is the one used mainly for inoculation. In some cases the injection is (21) followed, said the Inspector, by " great pain and suffering." He mentions the injection of tetanus toxin and the injection of plague also. And Professor Starling, the vivisector, gives it as his opinion that " in a pathological laboratory a certain amount of suffering may be an essential part of the experiment." Professor Pembrey, who went before the Royal Commission, said, "I think painful experiments are necessary; I myself have performed them. I mean, painful experiments as against experi- ments under anaesthetics. A common sense view should be taken of this question, and pain must be admitted. I admit that I have done painful experiments, and I am not ashamed of it. Pain is part of the scheme of nature!" He added that, given enough, the animal would be relieved by the pain producing fainting. This was spoken boldly before the Royal Commission. Will you tell me, after that, vivisection is not cruel ? Where Anaesthetics are Useless. But now you will say, " What about anaesthetics ? Does not the Act order anaesthetics ? Are not anaesthetics used ? " Let us look at this question. There are three kinds of experiments — first there are cutting operations, which are performed under anaesthetics. The licence enforces that. Where an anaesthetic is given the animal is killed before it recovers. According to the last return, 2,584 of these operations were performed in the previous year (1912). And then there are the experiments where an animal is cut, perhaps some organ or other is removed, and the animal is allowed to recover, and linger for a certain time afterwards. Even after that animal has suffered pain, the operator need not kill it, because he is under no obligation to kill it until the object of the experiment has been obtained. There were 2,240 of these. There remains the third class of experiments — inocula- tion. These are inoculations for every kind of disease, of various drugs and poisons, and so on. There were no less than 78,550 of these experiments last year — the very worst kind of vivisection, in which no anaesthetic was used. And many of these cases, the Inspector admits, were productive of pain, and must be. Take for instance Dr. Klein's experiments on cats' eyes; they were actually published some years ago in the Local Government Board's Blue (22) Book. Dr. Klein illustrates himself what was the effect of the inoculation upon the cats' eyes. They were swollen up to an enormous size, and the whole eye ultimately presented the appearance of a crater-like ulcer. What do you think of that vivisection? You know what it means to get anything in your eye, and here we have the agony of the cat, whose irritated eyes were held open for days and weeks. That is " painless " inocula- tion. The Research Defence Society will tell you in support of it, that this is nothing — it is the prick of a pin. But it is the development that we have to look at. How Anaesthetics are Administered. Then take the cutting of the organs of animals, like those experiments on the kidneys of fox-terriers, which I have men- tioned. I quite admit that practically every animal is put under an anaesthetic for the cutting operation, but before ever that anaesthetic is administered, I suppose in every case without exception, an injection of morphia is given. Morphia has simply the effect of stupefying the animal to a certain extent. It destroys its power of resistance, but it does not destroy its sense of pain, unless a lethal dose is given. When the animal is therefore stupefied by the morphia, the anaesthetic is given. They dare not give it too much anaesthetic ; if they did they would lose their animal, especially a dog, which is very susceptible indeed. It is only by the greatest care that you can keep a dog alive under full anaesthesia, especially when chloroform is used, which is of the most deadly nature to the canine race. When the anaesthetic is given you dare not give too much to the animal. It already lies like a log on the table under the influence of the narcotic, and you cannot tell how much that animal may be suffering. When we perform a major operation, we appoint one man to look after the anaesthetic and nothing else. Is that the case with the animals ? Very often the whole thing is mechanically regulated by the laboratory boy, from the next room. The vivisectors told the Royal Commission that the anaesthetic was adminstered in proportion to the body-weight of the animal. Can they tell by the body-weight how much is needed ? Let me put it in this way. No man looks solely after the anaesthetisation (23) of that animal. The experimenter may (look at itoccasionally, but that is nothing. The animal has hacMts power of resistance destroyed by the morphia or a little drop of curare, which paralyses the whole muscular system, and leaves the senses as vivid as before. The animal lies in that state. Now, I ask you, is there one solitary surgeon in the world, with a reputation to lose, who would dare to operate upon a human being — to perform a major operation — under circumstances of that description ? Would he dare to pass in a whiff of anaesthetic according to the weight of the patient upon the operating table, without having a man to watch every breath and to watch the conjunctiva, and to notice every little turn and twist that may take place in the move- ments of the patient before him ? No ! And therefore I want to know, if no surgeon would dare to perform a major operation upon a human being under such circumstances, what right has anyone to perform such an operation upon a poor helpless dog, simply because it cannot defend itself? The Home Secretary's Admission. Once again I will put the vivisector into the witness box, and clinch the matter in a way which cannot be gainsaid. They used to divide these operations into two classes — those which were painful, and those which were painless. A few years ago they stopped that, and a member of Parliament asked the Home Secretary why it was that these experiments were no longer divided into painful and painless ? The answer was that in many cases the operator himself could not tell whether the animal was 'suffering or not. They had to give it up entirely, and no longer make the division of painful and painless experiments. With an answer such as that, repeated by Professor Thane before the Royal Commission, we can only come to the conclusion that if the operator himself could not tell whether the animal was suffering or not when placed on the torture trough, it lay there under a ghastly risk. I think I have shown clearly that vivisection is immoral, unscientific and misleading ; that it is cruel and that it is useless, and under these circumstances I want to know what we can possibly do with such a practice, except to demand of the House of Commons that it shall be totally abolished ? (24) Bui, bear with me just another moment or two. A person will say what are you going to do ? If you are going to do away with experiments On animals what will take its place ? That is a foolish sort of argument. Because they got rid of a certain evil, which has been proved to be useless and unscientific, why should something else be needed to take its place ? The thing is wrong, and you do not want anything to take its place. But how are you to learn to get advancement in the treatment of human ailments and disease ? What is the right way ? The True Way to Learn. Well, I will not shirk the position. There is only one way by which you can learn how to treat human disease, and that is by experimentation upon human beings. "Ah!" you say, "you are as bad as the vivisectors." My friends, no. There is no need for us to experiment upon human beings. Nature herself is experi- menting every hour, every day, every week, and every month of the year. Nature experiments in accidents and disease of every kind. These experiments are passing before the eyes of the doctor all the way through, and if he will keep his eyes open, if he will take notice of the symptoms and physical signs, and if he will compare these symptoms and signs by the bedside with post- mortem room results and thoroughly judge of cause and effect, he will be able in all these cases of nature's experiments to put to the test the best methods that he can possibly devise for their allevia- tion and cure, and that without unscientific, cruel, misleading and immoral processes such as those which I have denounced to-night. For instance, we hear a great deal about goitre, an enlarge- ment of the thyroid gland. What has been discovered by experiments on monkeys ? Why, long years ago the origin of goitre was found out in Berne, in Switzerland, by experimentation upon eighteen patients who had enlarged thyroid glands. They had them removed for the purpose of treating the patients, and then it was found that the absence of the thyroid gland produced a condition known as myxoedema, or cretinism. Why did they want to start the wholesale excision of the thyroid glands in monkeys to prove the same thing? We have continuously the (25) experimentation upon animals in order to prove opinions which are already thoroughly and absolutely established. I think now we have seen from every point of view how absolutely baseless is the claim for vivisection, and I will not occupy your time further, because I am hoping that there may be some questions that will be asked, and that they will, perhaps, illustrate some further points which I have not been able to touch upon to-night. But before sitting down, I should like to ask the question, how this practice is to be dealt with, and by what means ? The Restriction Bill. There is already a Bill before the House of Commons for the total abolition of this practice. What we say is this, that if this practice is so absolutely bad, immoral, unscientific, misleading, cruel and useless, then there is no ground whatever for keeping such a measure as the Vivisection Act upon the Statute Book. To truckle or to compromise with the evil we consider a treachery to the poor creatures who have got to suffer. There is another Bill before the House of Commons. This is a restriction Bill, presented by another Society, which is called an Anti- Vivisection Society ; but it would perpetuate vivisection, only with restrictions. The promoter of that Bill says in effect, "Here in my Bill is provision for inspectorships, and it propounds to Parliament that every animal, during a cutting operation, shall be placed under an anaesthetic, and that the inspectors shall be present to see that the anaesthetic is properly administered." Now, the Government Inspector has always shown himself favourable to vivisection, and every annual Government report points to the same thing. One of the most recently appointed inspectors was a member of the Research Defence Society until he received the appointment, when he resigned. The Government, like all Governments, is always ready for a compromise, and in compliance with this wish they have added two extra whole time inspectors, and have appointed a superin- tendent whole time inspector as well. Now you see the effect that the pursuance of this restrictive policy has had. It has simply created an additional vested interest in vivisection itself, and they (26) make now vivisection practically the bread and butter of these paid officials, and this makes it more difficult for us than ever to get rid of it. This is called a half measure — they say they are giving us half a loaf; we reply that it is giving us a stone for bread, because it is perpetuating the evil practice, and it is professing to perpetuate it by suggesting that there is something in the practice which is good. Are there any benefits whatever which the public have derived from it ? I say there are none, and that you are exploiting these poor creatures for your own cowardly designs. There is another objection to this proposed restriction. How are you going to deal with the pain and suffering that follow inoculations ? It is useless to say that the animals are to be killed when they begin to show signs of suffering. The suffering is a part of the study. And even if you could enforce such a rule, how could all the animals be watched continually for signs of pain ? Animals usually endure in silence, and there are the long nights of suffering, when the vivisectors are absent. Inspectors are clearly useless for this. The "Higher Animals' Bill." There is yet another Bill, and this seeks to take the higher animals out — it is to take out dogs, cats, monkeys and so on. But here again I say : What are you doing ? I agree with Jeremy Bentham.it is not a question whether animals can reason much or little, or whether they can understand more or less, but whether they can feel? I do not see why all the rest of the animals should suffer because a certain few privileged ones are taken out, and why vicarious sacrifice should be resorted to in that way. By taking out these few animals you are practically justifying the vivisection of the lower animals, which you think are not quite so intelligent as those you are seeking to protect. I say that what we want to do is not to occupy the public mind with the differences in the animals, but to show the evil of vivisection itself, and when we have shown that, and proved that the practice of vivisection is bad and wicked, then vivisection itself will be swept away, and the whole animal creation will be free. The " Higher Animals' Bill " practically condones the practice. (27) You see we have our work before us, and there are great difficulties in the way. The whole medical profession stands up the one for the other, and the way they do that makes a great dead wall which seems almost impregnable. But so long as we have God and right upon our side, we are bound to succeed. There never was a movement yet, however great the forces that were against it, which aimed at abolishing an evil, but sooner or later that evil was shattered to pieces. They told Wilberforce, when he proposed the abolition of the slave trade, that the slave trade was bound up with the prestige of the English people, that the slaves did not suffer, that they were little more than beasts, and even Bishops in their pulpits advocated the continuance of the slave trade. Wilberforce said, " I care nothing for that. The one idea with me is that these men are flesh and blood like ourselves, and that they have rights as well as we have." And he went to the country, and touched the great throbbing heart of the British people, until thirty millions of money was paid down, and, thank God, slavery, so far as English authority is concerned, was ended. The Lesson of all Reforms. And even Shaftesbury, who was one of a little band of reformers, carried his point in the same way. They were taking children from the workhouses and orphanages, and bringing them up here to the North of England, to work in the factories from early morning until late at night. " It is blood money," said Shaftesbury. Even the eloquence of John Bright and of Gladstone was used to maintain the infamous traffic, but Shaftesbury said, " I care nothing for that. It is a foul and wicked practice, and it will have to go." And he never rested until the Factory Act was passed, and that abominable system swept away. The odds against him were greater, far greater, and the vested interests far, far deeper, than those which we have to face. Even Howard, after he had tramped from prison to prison, to expose the dreadful conditions that existed in his time, was told that they must go on. Women, for instance — witches, as they were called, who were lying festering in their own filth for months together — were put into Lancaster Gaol becauseiothers had a right to put them there, and, it was said, " they deserved it," and even (28) there again the Bishops maintained that the system must be kept going, as evil must be rigorously punished. Poor Howard died without seeing his object gained, but the death of Howard brought to mind the words he had said in his life time, and an agitation was commenced, as a result of which the prisons were over- hauled, and the foul system was ended. It was exactly the same in our lunatic asylums, where great reforms were brought about, and we have little idea of the enormous opposition that the reformers had to fight against. But they went forward, for they knew that they were right, and that they had God upon their side, and they were not going to bend down at the behest of men of means and influence, who spoke against them. What has been done before can be done again. We are here to ask you to stand by us and to help us, and to be determined that nothing shall be done until this foul blot upon the Christian standard of this country has for ever been wiped away. Remember this, my friends :— The hills have been steep for man's mounting, The woods have been dense for his axe, The stars have been thick for his counting, The sands have been wide for his tracks. The sea has been deep for his diving, The poles have been wide for his sway, But bravely he's proved by his striving That where there's a will there's a way. F. J. BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23207 The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. (The British Anti-Vivisection Society.) Foundress. FRANCES POWER COBBE. President and Hon. Sec : Hon. Treasurer : WALTER R. HADWEN, J.P., M.D., etc. The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. Secretary: Miss B. E. KIDD. Offices: 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W. From the Autobiography of Miss F. P. COBBE, "To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to the Anti-Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it as set forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to those specially who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to carry on the war against scientific cruelty, I now earnestly say as my final counsel : 44 Support the British Union." In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in support of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to state clearly in their Wills, 4, The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection," and to make them payable to the Treasurer for the time being. Form of Bequest. I bequeath unto the Society called THE BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION, the sum of free of Legacy Duty, and I direct that the same shall be paid to the Treasurer forthe time being of such last- mentioned Society. By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of the Testator and of each other. A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member. An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member. Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully accepted. An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union. SELECTED ANTI-VIVISECTION LITERATURE. Pamphlets by Dr. HADWEN, J. P. c . , Per Single. 10Q Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English Laboratories = Id. 1/- A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 2d. 2/- The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria - 2d 1/6 The Cult of the Vivisector = = - £d. 4d. Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk - = = 1d. 1/- Was Jenner a Charlatan ? - = = 1d. 1/- Debate between Dr. Hadwenand Mr. Stephen Paget at Shrewsbury. - - - 2d 1/6 Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. Eastham \(\. \/~ Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen and Sir Victor Horsley = - - - Id. 1/- Views of Men and Women of Note on the Vivisection Question - 2d. 2/- (Illustrated -with Portraits). The Case against Vaccination - - - 1d. 1/- The Controversy in "The Standard" - 3d. 2/6 A Vivisection Controversy — Mr. Stephen Paget'sclaims.and Dr. Madwen's answers 2d. 2/- Antisepsis or Apsepsis - - - - 1d. 9d. Jennerism and Pasteurism - - - Id. 9d By Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE. The Early History of the Anti-Vivisection Movement. Light in Dark Places 3d. Id. By BEATRICE E. KIDD. Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. Id., 9d. doz. Do you Know? (Illustrated). \d,6d.perdoz. The Policy of Abolition. Id , //- per doz. What about Anaesthetics? \d., 6d. per doz. By Miss A. F. WHITELEY. Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/6 doz. F. J . BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23204 •ffl IHIN*) W» w* US MUI. UtNThH Lfl HISTORICAL COfel-BCTIOf!